# Dunhill Made Pipes



## TexasOutlaw (Sep 13, 2007)

Does anyone have any experienced with Parker and Hardcastle? They both say made by Dunhill.


----------



## PaulMac (Jul 15, 2003)

TexasOutlaw said:


> Does anyone have any experienced with Parker and Hardcastle? They both say made by Dunhill.


gah, I gotta find my Hacker book, I know he talks about em, will try to have an answer by tomorrow


----------



## EvanS (Dec 29, 2006)

The following is excerpted from HERE

"The 1920's and 30's saw a great deal of change for Alfred Dunhill Limited. 
In the early 20's the Parker Pipe Co Limited was formed by Alfred Dunhill. 
In 1936 Hardcastle Pipes Limited sold 49% of its equity to the company, and
at about the same time a new pipe factory was opened at Forest Road,
Walthamstow, E17"


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

I have read somewhere (and cannot verify) that Hardcastle has been subject to use the briar which Dunhill feels is not up to their cosmetic or quality-of-appearance standards. 

This does not reflect on the smoking quality of the pipes Hardcastle produces "they' said.


----------



## TexasOutlaw (Sep 13, 2007)

Mister Moo said:


> I have read somewhere (and cannot verify) that Hardcastle has been subject to use the briar which Dunhill feels is not up to their cosmetic or quality-of-appearance standards.
> 
> This does not reflect on the smoking quality of the pipes Hardcastle produces "they' said.


I was hoping that they were a Dunhill second. Originally, seconds of big cigar companys smoked just as well; the only thing that started happening here is that the demand for seconds was so high that they started intentionally making them (to train newbie rollers and such, for example), so that now when you get a second, it doesnt mean its a big name that just didnt pass the test.


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

TexasOutlaw said:


> I was hoping that they were a Dunhill second...


D'uh... I dunno about Dunhill seconds. I dunno if there even exists a thing called a Dunhill second on the planet. I'm just parroting something I read a while back: Hardcastle pipes were first class smokers and that some % employ briar that was not up to papa-Dunhills' standard.

And most of my not-too-exacting knowledge about pipes begins with I "heard from someone once..." My post above was offered in the hope somebody who knows what they're talking about will fill in. Someone like PaulMac the Magnificent!


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

Just go over to A.S.P. and search "dunhill seconds" lots of info on that topic.


I have a hardcastle pot that was either my dads or grandpa's and it's a good pipe but not great, the mortise is drilled way too deep. So its not even close to a dunhill made pipe.


----------



## EvanS (Dec 29, 2006)

per Root's statement above - everything I see mostly claims that Dunhill bought a stake in Hardcastle. Otherwise I see no real proof that there was any cross-pollination happening here.


----------



## TexasOutlaw (Sep 13, 2007)

Thanks guys, very good info.


----------



## PaulMac (Jul 15, 2003)

From The Ultimate Pipe Book by Richard Carleton Hacker:

Hardcastle - Edmund Hardcastle began making pipes in 1908 and for a while the pipes were made in the old Jack O'London factory in Walthamstow, England. The firm was subsequently acquired by Dunhill, where it eventually became part of the Parker-Hardcastle operation. Hardcastle pipes are still being produced for Great Britain and Europe, although they are not available in the U.S. except as a private brand with somewhat limited distribution.

Parker-Hardcastle - A compilation of names which occured in 1967, arising from the amalgamation of the Parker Pipe Company, which was started in 1922 as a subsidiary of Dunhill, with the Hardcastle pipe company. Today the Parker is a well-made, popular pipe sold under the auspices of the Dunhill company in London, but it is no longer being imported into the United States.

As others have said, they are not Dunhill seconds really, but they are the recipients of all briar that does not meet Dunhill's standards (They will only use premium grade AA briar and any imperfections found during production causes it to be scrapped). So they are generally considered seconds even though Dunhill does not refer to them as such.


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

PaulMac said:


> ...As others have said...


"Other", Paul The Magnificent. That would be "other."

Woot. I finally got a pipe one right! It's a GREAT day all around.

:chk:chk:chk


----------



## PaulMac (Jul 15, 2003)

Mister Moo said:


> "Other", Paul The Magnificent. That would be "other."
> 
> Woot. I finally got a pipe one right! It's a GREAT day all around.
> 
> :chk:chk:chk


they say even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then :r

JK, you were right on with this one


----------



## cp478 (Oct 23, 2008)

But you have to remember that dunhill only uses the best briar out there.
So briar that doesn't pass for dunhill is still great briar and probably better than some other manufacturers.

I hqave a hardcastle and it smokes great.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

cp478 said:


> But you have to remember that dunhill only uses the best briar out there.
> So briar that doesn't pass for dunhill is still great briar and probably better than some other manufacturers.
> 
> I hqave a hardcastle and it smokes great.


You know I've wondered about this. Is it accurate to say that Dunhill selects their briar first looking for an absence of flaws, and only then considers grain? So many Dunhills have such boring or non-existent grain. There are exceptions, but on the whole the Danes and Italians seem to offer equally high-end pipes with eye-popping grain.

I wonder if it's a leftover from the days of the English Gentleman. That is, to have the very best, but not flashy.


----------



## lestrout (Dec 10, 2007)

I have a couple of Hardcastles, one being pretty recent production. Also an older Parker. I don't know their relationships to Dunhill, but they puff better than my 3 Dunnies. Luck of the draw, I guess.

hp
les


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

drastic_quench said:


> You know I've wondered about this. Is it accurate to say that Dunhill selects their briar first looking for an absence of flaws, and only then considers grain? So many Dunhills have such boring or non-existent grain. There are exceptions, but on the whole the Danes and Italians seem to offer equally high-end pipes with eye-popping grain.
> 
> I wonder if it's a leftover from the days of the English Gentleman. That is, to have the very best, but not flashy.


You are "spot on" (as they say in England!). Dunhill's primary concern is a perfect piece of briar and flawless manufacture. Then they worry about grain. Obviously, a finely grained pipe is the luck of the draw, particularly when you're making standard shapes. A freehand carver can look at the block and its grain pattern and carve a shape that will best bring out the grain. Dunhill looks at blocks and says "billiard"... "apple", etc. Dunhill has always believed that grain is purely aesthetic, and I can't say I disagree.

As for Parkers and Hardcastles, historically they were Dunhill seconds. I'll never forget my B&M days when we called Dunhill and asked about Dunhill seconds. (Monty Python British accent, incredulous and annoyed): "Seconds??!!?? We don't make seconds!!!!" lol - I can still hear that guy. He probably hung up muttering about ridiculous Yanks. arty:


----------



## Jack Straw (Nov 20, 2008)

cp478 said:


> But you have to remember that dunhill only uses the best briar out there.


I've never smoked one, so can't comment on if they're worth the money. But here is something somewhat scandalous that Marty Pulvers had up on his website for a while:



Marty Pulvers said:


> Every so often, an internal issue captures the attention of all pipe hobbyists and demands thoughtful analysis and commands many column inches of copy. Issues such as that provide satisfaction to me because I stay far away from them.
> 
> No, what brings me to the fore is rumor and gossip...the stuff fueled by insinuation and innuendo of a quality that would make old Senator Joe McCarthy proud.We are lucky to have just such a topic hitting the market, in the guise of a story in Pipes & Tobaccos magazine. We are talking about the article on Dunhill, which has a number of hobby veterans annoyed, their claim being this is purely a puff piece.
> 
> ...


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

Interesting story! Most of it is believable and some is a bit dubious but a few comments:

1) "...and the rest is burned". Very doubtful. No company could afford to stay in business with only 5% of their purchased raw materials being usable. And if the Parker-Hardcastles coming from Dunhill "B" stock is true, the "rest is burned" is false. Whether true or false, it's extremely dubious.

2) The 5% bit and why Dunhill is the only company that can't make a pipe out of at least some of the remainder. I'm not sure that 5% is accurate but what I can say, after having looked at literally hundreds of Dunhills (albeit not many lately) is that I never saw so much as a tiny sandpit on a Dunhill. Bjarne Nielsen pipes? Plenty. As I said before, Dunhill doesn't care so much about grain (until they find it!) but they have always been against fills and sandpits or anomalies of any kind. That includes improper drilling and basic pipe physics. What may have become of Dunhill over the last decade is unknown to me, but from the mid-1990's backwards, I saw exactly 1 Dunhill (to the best of my recollection) that had an imperfection. I called them and they were extremely embarrassed by it, insisting I return it immediately. 1 out of several hundred if not a thousand. Who else can say that? Answer: No one. At least not anyone that churns out pipes at 1/3 the rate Dunhill does.

There may be other factors that explain "inferior" briar. There could be soft spots inside the bowl that aren''t evident from inspection. The oil-curing process certainly may have contributed to a lack of perfection in Dunhill pipes after 1968, as Bill Taylor stated. But as far as a hobbiest can tell, Dunhill put out perfect pipes, at least from 1995 back. No apparent flaws... at least 999 times out of 1000.

Perfect pipes today seem to be sandpit-bearing straight grains. I personally have a Cavicchi 5C pipe that Dunhill would have rejected, as sweet a cross grain as it is, for its one tiny sandpit that I have to hold a magnifying glass to and squint to see. Ditto several other Italian or Danish made high grades. Conversely I have seen Dunhills that Bjarne would have given a carved finish due to the lack of grain, and charged less for than Dunhill did.

Not only are we allowed to believe what we want, we are allowed to decide which pertinence we shall pick. As a confirmed meerschaum man, I have no stake in this argument, other than to provide food for thought.  Always two sides to every story... at least!


----------

